Deep thoughts for a weekend

Philosophy Now | Kant By Default

Here's a summary by the author of what his book is about:

The central question is whether morality can be understood apart from the outcomes we expect to ensue from our actions. ... The consequentialist says that whatever results, intended or not, decides the morality of what you did. This is why, for example, theft is morally wrong: the relative net results of theft are usually negative, that is, worse than not stealing. The nonconsequentialist demurs: theft could be wrong even if the relative net results were positive. And why is this? In other words, if not consequences, then what does make something right or wrong? The answer depends on which kind of nonconsequentialist one asks. A Divine Command Theorist would claim that God’s commandments make something right or wrong. A Kantian, such as myself, would claim that the criterion of morality, or ‘categorical imperative’, is whether anyone (including an animal) is treated merely as a means: if they are, then the action is wrong, and otherwise not. But whether it’s God or the categorical imperative that is calling the shots, the actual outcomes don’t affect the moral quality of the action. Thus, if following God’s commandment or avoiding treating someone merely as means led to a catastrophe, it would still be the right thing to do, according to these views.

He then says:

Laid out in that abstract fashion, one or the other of the opposing positions may strike the reader as compelling. I think that both are compelling for all of us, but at different times and to different degrees.

This is too deep for Saturday morning thoughts, but the switching between the two different views makes some sense, I think, even from a Catholic perspective which has to be (at the meta level) nonconsequentialist.

For example, sexual infidelity may be clearly immoral, but if you decide to have the affair anyway, surely the consequentialist argument that it is better to limit the possible negative consequences by using a condom makes sense.

The problem is, the Pope doesn't want anyone to sin, so he doesn't want to talk about preferable ways to sin. But really, I can't see the sense in not being a consequentialist as to the consequences of sin.